I don't really get to make the canon for WoT any longer, and I try very hard not to speak for the series or for Harriet.

That said, I'm 100% behind this casting--and I think Mr. Jordan would be as well. He specifically built Wheel of Time in a way where our current understandings of culture, race, and ethnicity no longer held. Beyond that, he worked very hard to try to make people's biases in the world break along gender lines or nationality lines--because those are the themes in the series he wanted to explore.

One could certainly make the argument that a text trying to be colorblind has unfortunate side-effects, but I think it's very valid to experiment with fiction like this. That was what Mr. Jordan was trying very hard to do.

Rafe is doing an excellent job here matching the souls of the characters to actors--and I think in the Wheel of Time, that should come far, far ahead of racial considerations. As long as Rand has red hair and "looks Aiel" little else about ethnicity really matters in the text.

I haven't met these actors, and I don't know how they will act, but the look of them is very encouraging. They feel like the characters I read about from a quick glance. I suspect most of us could have named the character from the headshots for each of them. That's some great casting.

Thank you for that. I've always appreciated your way with words, even outside your novels. I got to have dinner with you and a few other fans once, years ago, when you were on your book tour for The Gathering Storm, and I've been impressed with you as a kind and thoughtful person since then.

It looks like the original post may have been removed, unfortunately, so your comments on this might get lost from notice, but they are appreciated none the less.

Thank you for... being you. A horribly inarticulate way of phrasing it but I can’t think of another. Also I was taking a short phone break between chapters of TWOKs when I came across this comment, small world.

The main problem I see is the this statement:
“As much as possible, our cast should look like America will in a few hundred years — a beautiful mix of white, brown, black and everything in between.”

Problem with this is that it brings real world politics to the books. If it is less defined and should not matter, why mention it in the first place? If so, pick the cast, be consistent with the book, and let Mr. Jordan character's work do it's magic. But by writing it, it pointlessly alienated people. It looks and feels like a forced move, like someone trying to push it's own political agenda (incredibly common in this day and age). That will make people angry, or at the very least they will fairly think: "So does this mean that they will change whatever they want, disregarding the books entirely, just to fit their own agenda?" And it's a fair point since it has happened before with other media.

If instead of that line, they wrote something like this: "Robert Jordan worked to try to make people's biases in the world break along gender lines or nationality lines. As such, matching the souls of the characters to actors should come far ahead of racial considerations.", issues would have been non-existent for most people. Yes I mostly stole mistborn words, as it is hard to come up with something that is already well written. Some would hate because they had their own ideas for how the characters should look (which all do when we read, specially when the author is a bit more vague) but not the explosion that happened. People on the internet are acting like morons? Yes. Was it the dumbest of ideas to intentionally put your personal world view in a professional environment? Also yes. Will any of the sides admit it's fault? No. And it is sad that the cast has to deal with morons because someone else did a bad job.

That's a legit gripe. I don't blame anyone if they don't like this decision for book/film continuity reasons--just as I would have trouble blaming anyone for disliking a casting like Jackman as Wolverine, because he's so different from the source material. Most of us loved him, but it's okay for someone to dislike the choice.

The WoT casting looks good to me. It's more than it doesn't bother me; it's more that I actively like how these people look as the characters. Granted, I have information others don't have. I've read Rafe's scripts, I've read his treatments, and I get what he's doing with the series--and in almost every case, I like the choices he's made.

Deciding to do the Two Rivers with a variety of skin tones but a unified cultural identity is cool to me because I think it expresses some of the broad themes of the Wheel of Time. Themes that might be difficult to get across otherwise without the text, the internal monologues, etc.

To me, this is like putting the Harry Potter kids in street clothes in the third of those films, or making Frodo push Sam away in the LotR films--both are pretty big deviations from the letter of the story, but both (I think) achieve something in setting the tone the right way for a film.

That said, I can see this being something you dislike. For what it's worth--from my experience, this isn't Rafe pandering. It might well be Rafe expressing his own ideologies in the story. It's okay to dislike those choices, but I do think that it would be a mistake to not want a showrunner who tries to make their own version of the story. (Like Jackson did with the LotR films.)

This is one of the things I've had to become comfortable with in watching my own book-to-film adaptations progress. You won't get something great without letting a new vision change the story. Even Marvel, in charge of its own properties, heavily adapted characters, looks, and stories to fit the new medium of film.

If the chosen actors had looked completely wrong...well, I'd still probably have waited to see them act in the roles. (That will be the big deciding factor.) But the fact that they look so right feels like confirmation to me that so far, Rafe is steering the ship well.

I don't think that one necessarily HAS to deviate from source material to make a story compelling. Whereas I completely agree that a filmmaker must put his/her own stamp on a film, I have seen several examples how deviating for a story can HARM a film. Look to Game of Thrones season 8. Season 1 of Game of Thrones was a dang near perfect adaptation, only cutting extremely minor characters and subplots, but it still had D&D's heavy-handed style. Most fans (that I have talked to) agree that its after the show started to deviate from the books when the show started to get more contradictory, and less exciting. (and therefore harder to escape into and suspend disbelief!)

I perhaps overstated my opinion. My intent was to indicate you can never get a film that won't have the filmmaker putting their stamp on it--and in general, a filmmaker with powerful style and storytelling chops of their own will usually have a more noticeable stamp. In general, I'd feel these are the people you want on the story. In addition, a different medium often requires different choices to be made.

HOWEVER, you are right. Deviation from the source material isn't what makes films great--rather, having a director who knows when to deviate is very important. And in some cases, you may find a director who believes not deviating is the right thing, and is able to therefore do a great job by knowing to stick close to the story.

Thanks for the reply! I am totally excited for the upcoming adaptation of Wheel of Time! (and maybe a Cosmere cinematic adaptation down the road!) I think the fact that you are so actively involved is really cool.

I appreciate the Harry Potter films becuase they allow people who might not have the inclination to read a 7-part book series a chance to experience the magic. But, when going to see them as a kid [who had read the book] I always walked out of the theatre feeling dissappointed, as if had gotten a better experience with the books. I was especially concerned for those who had seen the film wihtout reading the books, they didn't even know what they were missing. This was my first foray into "The book was better" that i all-too-often hear. Looking back, [and seeing several terrible fantasy adaptations] i consider myself lucky that each one was so good. (but that doesn't stop me from wishign they were better; like if they release the fabled extended editions they used to play around Christmas time)

As a HUGE fan of cinema and the Auteur theory of filmmaking (yes i know its collborative, but I live unique style!) I think that the statement "the book was better" doesn't have to be the case, even if it usually is! Both works (the book and the film) should uplift each other, adding to the escapism.

My best example is (one again referencing the Harry Potter universe) in the film when you learn that Flitwick is not only the Charms Master but also a choir teacher. (I understand this was just a visual gag in a few shots). Everytime now that I re-read the series, that little bit of fleshed-out world building sticks with me.

HOWEVER, you are right. Deviation from the source material isn't what makes films great--rather, having a director who knows when to deviate is very important.

Absolutely. Even this casting "drama" can be an example. If you had someone who was so hardcore "We need these actors to look this way, no matter the cost", and we end up with a bunch of leads who can't act, there would be problems.

I agree that the 3rd Harry Potter film is the best one, not because it deviates, but simply because it told the best; it has the best filmmaking; it does the best at persuading the viewer to fall into the whimsy of the Magical World.

I mean look at the 7th Harry Potter book adaptation, which many people love. It was almost a page to film adaptation and it worked because of its dark and menacing tone. Many people say the worst HP film is the 6th one (because it left out too much and much of the movie seemed pointless; hilarious, but pointless).

Taking a look at King Arthur's often troubled films, one can see that most of them become forgettable after a couple of years. The most stand-out of these is arguably John Boorman's Excalibur (or Disney's bastardization xD). Boorman's Excalibur, while taking liberties, is definitely the most close to Le Morte de Artur (well at least a lot closer than Fuqua's, which went for Historical accuracy over adapting a fictional story, and definitely Ritchie's, which was pitched as a direct adaptation with one movie per Knight of the Round Table but the producers got cold feet so it became a mediocre film.) I would argue that most people who try to adapt King Arthur would do a lot better if they just followed the already compelling and thrilling storyline present by Mallory!

Yes it is true that often when Hollywood turns a book into a film with the same author as screenwriter, major changes were made. (You mentioned A Princess Bride; Last Unicorn, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) I think a lot of this has to due with the production of the film, not the artistic integrity of the people involved. Now I might be wrong, but if budget were not an issue, I bet most adaptations from this time probably would have adapted some of the more pricey, effect heavy sequences from their own books.

I don't see why people cannot make adaptations of Books into films and try to replicate the book while giving its their own visual style, and still not change a thing. A great example is the Fellowship of the Ring. Yes there were HUGE cuts made to streamline the narrative into a serviceable film length (3 hours 📷:P) but if your look at both of its adaptations, the directors (Jackson and Bakshi) gave so much of their own personal styles into the films without really changing much. (generally people say that Fellowship is the most direct of Jackson's adaptations and the best film overall. Especially considering the Hobbit films)

A lot of people who have read the in's-and-out's of the a might welcome a few deviations to keep it fresh and exciting. Others, who have never read the books might not even notice and therefore do not care. I am in a third category when it comes to Wheel of Time. I have always wanted to read the books but haven't had the time. I also LOVE films and filmmaking in general. I want this to be adapted correctly so that it uplifts the source material instead of changes it. I don't see why my two loves (filmmaking and fantasy) must fight every time they meet!

Just a simple but heartfelt thank you for being a voice of reason in these types of discussions.
Personally i hate when when characters are "adapted" for the sake of diversity! I think it is a pat on the head to POCs, for instance, that they have to be shoehorned in, indicating that they cant be interesting enough to make it on their own. I some cases, it is also as simple as "looks matter" since they can very strongly connected to your positive memories and feelings. Changing that, for the sake of change itself, will create backlash.
However, in WoT the specific looks are not all that specific when it comes to skin pigmentation or "racial stereotypical looks". You point this out, give some good similar examples and also seem to have good intel on the situation at hand.
M.Y.S.P

I don't fully agree with everything, but I do appreciate your words - this is the kind of commentary that has been missing here lately.

All too often in the last week or so, the response in this sub to criticism over the casting has been veiled and not so veiled accusations of racism. Your response is thoughtful, well-considered, and, at least from my end, appreciated.

criticism over the casting has been veiled and not so veiled accusations of racism.

To be fair, Brandon's being a lot more diplomatic on this point. Here's what Maria posted on Facebook:

Okay, I was just pointed at a certain article saying that everyone in The Wheel of Time comics was white, so that must be what Robert Jordan meant for Emond’s Fielders to look like. The article says that the comics were released in 2005, two years before RJ’s death. That’s NOT the case. Some of the comics of New Spring did come out before his death, and he did work on those – some of his emails about them are included in New Spring: The Graphic Novel. However, in New Spring no one goes anywhere close to the Two Rivers.

There was a dry period for the comics – New Spring was not finished, but no new issues were produced – and in that period RJ died. It was not until 2008 that Bandersnatch resumed work with the Dabel brothers to finish them. RJ was dead, so I - who had worked with RJ and the Dabels on the earlier issues - worked with the Dabels, approving or asking for any changes desired.

Shortly after that, we embarked on the comic version of “The Eye of the World.” RJ was still dead, so again oversight of production was given to me. Issue 00 of the comic has a cover date of April 09.So it is totally unfair, specious, and wrong to say that the comics prove that all Emond’s Fielders were white. In MY mind’s eye, at that time they were, which is totally MY failing, and not Robert Jordan’s. Careful reading of the books shows that they are not what my privilege led me to assume.

And yes, RJ did have a list of actors that he said the characters resembled, and those actors were largely white, but that list was made long before, and referred more to build and face structure, not necessarily eye color or skin tone. Val Kilmer has blue eyes, after all, and Perrin’s are canonically brown until certain events occur.

I think that the cast chosen for the TV series is absolutely wonderful, and every time I look at each of them, I’m a little more in love. Harriet thinks that they are grand as well and particularly likes Marcus’ eyebrows.

Really, people, I feel quite safe in saying that Robert Jordan would be freaking appalled at all this racism.

I don't disagree that he would be appalled; but that doesn't mean that he didn't write certain characters in certain ways, either. And, this is more interpretation by Maria; nobody's interpretation or mind's-eye view of the characters is per se more valid than anyone else's at this point.

My close reading of the text says that anyone saying that the 2R is definitively non-white is selling you a bill of goods, based on either deception or poor analysis.

Frankly, though, the reasons given are just weak sauce; it literally is bad argument without a factual basis.

In the end, ultimately, the color of the 2R is essentially meaningless for the greater story. The only place where it is of any significance is the early part of the story, and even then only as a comparison point for Rand.

I take personal deep offence to posts like this. I am a black man - not brown but darker that dark chocolate black. So I will not have any white person lecturing me on racism. It is ridiculous to call people racist for simply expressing an opinion on their view of the characters.

People are allowed to have their own opinions, but people are not allowed to have their own facts. So the texts of the book is there to give us the facts.

ToM chap 42 - Egwene blushed.

LoC - Nynaeve blushed "for two sunsets"

EoW - Chapter 7 has Perrin blushing.

It's quite OK for people to be happy with and embrace the race bending. Just say that and don't try to come up with apocryphal reasoning about the book characters being dark. Black people don't blush. Unless you are using racist one drop rule to define all racially ambiguous people as black.

And it's quite OK for people to feel that it's pandering or tokenism when it's done for no reason at all but to advance the director's political. I don't speak for all black people but I am one of those black people who find this to be an insulting pat on the head.

Lastly, I resent every TV program being viewed through American socio-political lens. There are 1.2 billiuon black people in this world and we are not a monolith.

I'm black, and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with what you're saying here... But one think I absolutely disagree with and feel obligated to state:

I blush.

I am black, by any measure and standard you want to throw at me, and I also most definitely blush. My dad is much darker than me, and I can still see him blush sometimes. My mom is much lighter than me, and I can't tell if she ever blushes. You said you don't speak for all black people, but you also started with a general statement of opinion presented as fact for why you think RJ definitely intended for his characters to be of a certain color and not another.

This is a patently false statement. All human beings blush, blood rises to their face when embarrassed or a similar feeling. Sometimes you can see it, sometimes you can't.

You think you are being pandered too, that's fine. I don't, and even if I did I would also celebrate it because so often people don't even try. But as you said, you can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Don't try to tell me I don't blush, I can look in the mirror and prove you wrong.

Blush is not blood rushing to the face. It's the colouring caused by blood running to the face. As in the dictionary: show shyness, embarrassment, or shame by becoming red in the face.

If you identify as black, and you get noticeably red in the face, then you blush. I'll give you that.

My main argument was with people trying to shut down debate by calling people who raise objections racist. We are all fans of the story and the thing we need is for fans to start badmouthing the story. I am Jamaican and I believe Marcus is of Jamaican decent so I am happy for him to get this role. But for the sake of the story, I want to feel that I am watching WoT and not a shit project like shannara chronicles.
I don't watch tv to feel good about myself.

Your definition of blush looks the same as mine, but if you would rather use the word running instead of rushing, or that it's the coloring that matters instead of the cause, that's fine with me, doesn't change that I blush.

And I have zero problem with your argument... Personally I do think that many of the arguments presented do carry a tinge of racial feelings one way or another, but proving that would require knowing the individual to a point where I can feel comfortable discussing their true motivations, and that just ain't gonna happen in a Reddit post...

Anyway, I don't think I agree with it, but I certainly concede that it's your opinion to have.

I think Brandon said it best, you are always going to get an adaptation or interpretation anytime you move a story from one medium to another, and you're free to like the changes or not. Personally, I'm loving everything I see so far, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks. And I will defend your right to feel the way you do! We are all here because we love RJ's world. Some people are purists while some people are more relaxed. I just happen to belong to the former group.

I agree with the thoughtful response of Brandon who is perhaps my second favouring writer behind RJ. People are quite entitle to like or dislike what they see. Without more, always engage their ideas and not their person

People of all skin colors blush. It's much, much more easy to detect in light-skinned people. With your skin, it is visually almost impossible to detect; with my lightly-bronzed skin, it's not hard - with my mother's lily-white skin, it's trivial.

Not to chase this further down the rabbit hole than it merits, but your assumption that there's a racial divide on blushing is incorrect. Given the complexion of Zoe Robins and Madeleine Madden (Zoe especially), it may very well be possible to detect their blushing.

What you have from Maria is an endorsement that this cast is not inconsistent with RJ's vision, and that Harriet approves. Maria and Harriet are the two most important opinions on this, because they're the two most directly linked to RJ.

Like you said, it's not my place to lecture you on racism. But I do disagree with your defense (and /u/mistborn's) of the legitimacy of criticism of this casting.

The idea that there is not textual evidence that the complexion of Emond's Fielders was at least dark enough that Rand's skin color did not fit in is wrong. Elaida pushes back Rand's sleeve and questions his story of being from the Two Rivers. The baseline skin tone in the Two Rivers is substantially darker than Rand's coloration, even if it's not necessarily as dark as this cast.

The idea that skin tone is substantially more important than height or any other physical attribute is a racist one. If you took the casting of Rosamund Pike in stride despite her height (half a foot or more taller than Moiraine), and you posted the "RJ's ideal cast" photo with a brown-haired, brown-eyed Rand and a blue-eyed Perrin, I think that there's racial hang-ups, because you're acting like variations in skin tone are fundamentally different than differences in height or eye color. And, more specifically, what people are complaining about here is not even skin tone - it's racial identity. Marcus and Zoe are of African descent. Madeleine is of Australian Aboriginal descent. People find those differences unacceptable, but seem fine with height differences, eye color differences, etc.

I have a problem with this, because the racial identity difference is actually less significant to the books than the height difference for Moiraine. Part of the significance of her character is that she is a diminutive woman but a force in personality, in aptitude in the One Power, and Rand towers over her but finds her overwhelmingly intimidating. Part of that dynamic could be lost with Rand and Moiraine only 9 inches apart rather than 18.

You mention the "one drop" theory - I think that the people assuming Marcus is black are doing the same thing - because I'm fairly sure he's biracial, both from his appearance and from some of his online profiles that I've read.

In my opinion, if people are putting racial identity in general, or skin tone in particular, on a pedestal, that's suggestive of questionable racial views, implicit or explicit. And there's a lot of implicit racism in people that they need to confront. That deserves to be pointed out when it comes up.

I think that a lot of the arguments that people have been raising are pretext. For instance, the idea that Rand needs to be able to think it's possible that he's descended from Tam? Well, that assumes that Rand wouldn't think he could be the son of a light brown-skinned man and a white-skinned woman, understanding that he probably doesn't have our experience with what kids of such a union might look like.

People need to confront their biases. And I think thinking that the skin tone of these actors is of key significance is a result of bias.

Look, I hate concept creep. the dictionary says: show shyness, embarrassment, or shame by becoming red in the face. Ergo, it's the colouring. When women put on blush, they colour their cheeks. Plain and simple and debating that is engaging in sophistry. It's like we are living in a world where words don't have meaning anymore.

For the rest of your comment, guess what? Race exist. I am a black man. That is important to me. It does not make me better or worse that any other person, but I am what I am. Nowhere in my comment did i pass any judgement on the cast. If you ask me, Mat is the odd one out because the diversity does not make sense from a world building point of view. My comment about the TR folks not being black was addressed at the people doing contortions to say that they could be. And yes, skin colour can matter for credibility of story. You may disagree, but those who believe that aren't necessarily racist. You are simply trying to shame people and shut down debate by saying that.

Rather that engaging with my ideas, you seem to be bordering on calling me self hating without knowing anything about me.

I'm not calling you self-hating. I'm saying that you're giving people too much credit. There is intrinsic racism in the suggestion that there's a profound importance to skin color or facial identity for a story to be "authentic" with no corresponding emphasis on other physical traits, like height or eye color.

People suggesting that Val Kilmer is a good Perrin or Ben Affleck is a good Rand based upon RJ's cast but who have a problem with Marcus, Zoe, and Madeline's skin color are treating skin color as something fundamentally different than other physical differences. That's a type of racism.

It's even more racist when people have asked how they will ever find someone to play Tuon or Semirhage that looks different than the Two Rivers crew. That ignores the profound difference between your skin color and the heroes of this story, as if people with a single drop of "non-white" blood are all the same.

Mat stands out less than people think. He's lighter skinned, but definitely Semitic.

You can get shoot Rosamond standing in a hole and make her appear short, that's not controversial. I would hate to see them whiteface these beautiful people in order to make them lighter.

Look. This is not the hill I will chose to die on. I accept that I am a middle aged geek who crave precision while many people are fluid. I am worried that this will end up being some YA reboot of Shanara Chronicles or Legend of the seeker that bears little resemblance to the WoT. Just accept that we all love this project and what to see it succeed so that we can get our friends and families to watch it.

Please be careful of alluding to people's motives. We can debate ideas, we don't debate people. So until someone says something clearly racist, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and engage their ideas/ theories.

The thing is though, I have longed for some time to see Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time adapted to the small screen. I have however no interest in Rafe Judkin's Wheel of Time. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person, but I'll quote Jordan on this one (truncated, full quote here):

"And no, I'm not challenging gender stereotypes. I'm doing a lot of things here and there's only so much I can do. There are other threads, other questions, other things that would be great write about, to put into these books. The only trouble is, would you really stick around if it was twenty-two books and they were twice as thick as this? All right, if so... Not only that, I'm not sure you could stand the strain. I have notes on characters, on countries, cultures, customs, all sorts of things. Aes Sedai have two files of two megabytes or so on each. One's just lists of individual Aes Sedai and information about them. The other is the founding of the White Tower customs, the cultures, the sexual relationships among Aes Sedai in training, the whole nine yards. Everything I could think of that might be useful about them. The story isn't there."

...

"And I'm not sure how much more complex I can make it and how many more threads I can add and still hang onto it. So if I'm going to go into gender stereotypes I'm going to have to drop some of the things from the prophecies."

Jordan had certain themes he wanted to explore, and I think he did an admirable job of it. It seems to me that Rafe is coming in with his own themes he wishes to explore, and if he wishes to do so something else will have to be taken out in order to make room for those other themes to be explored. Now the problem is that Jordan built his world around these themes. He built them into his characters and into the story. The more these change, further this adaptation will be from the story Jordan set out to tell. And the greater the likelihood of it all falling apart because the rationality of the world falls apart.

As an example, if we now have a diverse Two Rivers, what does that do to the feel of the events in books 4 and 5 when outsiders come to the Two Rivers? I can't help but think that it detracts from it thematically if the only message is that the outsiders brought with them some tiled roofs and new dress designs. Whereas what Jordan wrote while ignoring race beautifully illustrated how these people were willing to accept people different than themselves. That could have been a powerful scene, and I think we've lost a lot of that power.

Now, maybe that's not the end of the world, but has Rafe done anything to give us long time fans of the series any faith that he won't keep making these changes? That he won't keep chipping away at what makes the series special? What I'm seeing is an end as ignoble as that of Game of Thrones, only rather than being served up as a nasty surprise towards the end, I'm dreading that we'll find ourselves on the wrong track from the start.

Again, there is a legitimate gripe here--and I'm not calling you wrong for making such complaints. Writing is art, and it's legitimate to simply not like artistic decisions. It's doubly legitimate to dislike where an adaptation is taking the work. But I have two responses here.

First is this: You're never going to get a good director who doesn't put their own spin on the source material. It's because they know you simply cannot adapt most written media into film without changing things dramatically. When people try to adapt line by line, but not try to capture the soul of the piece (as seen through their on eyes, and their own experience) you end up with something sterile at best, a disaster at worst.

What is the single greatest (by general agreement of audiences and critics) Stephen King Adaptation? It's the one that deviates the furthest. Even the new IT takes huge liberties.

The early Harry Potter adaptations are attempts to line-by-line try to adapt the books. They are mediocre films in the eyes of most critics and audiences. There is a reason why the third film, which deviates greatly, is the one that FEELS more Harry Potter to a lot of people. (Granted, not all of them.) It's because the project had someone who adapted the material and added their artistic vision to that of the book. (Which was, admittedly, the strongest of the books also.)

You have Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. He wrote it in the medium he wanted, and it will never change. You are never, in film, going to get anything but the director's Wheel of Time. This is something I've had to realize the more I've become involved in Hollywood.

A great case study is the Princess Bride. One of the rare examples where the same person wrote the book and the screenplay--someone who was good at both. And the film deviates in huge ways from the book, along the lines that the screenwriter wanted. Because he knew that film is a different medium, with different needs and different audience expectations.

If you don't want Rafe's Wheel of Time, that's completely legitimate. But you're not going to get a director who could explore Robert Jordan's themes in his way. Ever. You're going to get a director who explores Robert Jordan's themes in the director's way.

My argument about your paragraph about people coming to the Two Rivers...well, I just disagree. (That's okay--it's art, and it's good to disagree sometimes.) I think that people with new ways of thinking, new dress, new ways of doing things is WAY more thematically alien in a story like this than people who look different.

When the Two Rivers folk are traveling with the Aiel, how often do they note how different everyone looks? (Rarely.) How often do they note differences in culture? (Basically every other page.)

This fits the Wheel of Time just fine to me. I appreciate the thoughtful response, though, and your Game of Thrones argument is (unfortunately) a large and legitimate counter-argument to everything I've said here.

Strange, I felt this epic narrative was pretty much based on themes all epic narratives tend to have. Small town ignorance goes out into the world where they experience difference in appearance and culture and have to decide to accept and grow, or reject and diminish. I felt the books easily reflected Jordans experiences going off to war and experiencing those exact issues. The books very pointedly and repeatedly expose prejudices precisely because there are very noticeable differences and nationalities can be fairly accurately deduced by both the reader and the characters based on basic physical appearances and dress. Just like the gender stereotypes Jordan pointed out extended through all cultures, the overlaying of the different prejudices actually allow reconciliation and breaking down of the appearance differences.

Sadly what this boils down to for me, is I see this as breaking the immersion, the suspension of disbelief that is required to attract an audience. Imagine if you would if in the LOTR movies the hobbits were all different in skin and hair tones. First it would destroy the illusion of the shire being a small isolated community. Next imagine them meeting with the elves, and make all the elves equally diverse in appearance. Suddenly the awe and wonder of the Hobbits is less believable. They are simply taller with pointed ears. Not different than men. If you don't think those changes would have seriously weakened the story and popularity of LOTR, I think you are sadly sadly mistaken.

This ridiculous appeal to some necessary fundamental change when adapting stories is quite absurd. GoT followed the first book very closely and this fidelity won the fans over who in turn pulled everyone else to watch. LOTR left out large chunks of the book but those parts were simply unnecessary for the story as they had no real impact on any future events, but otherwise it was very faithful. I think fantasy has a unique problem that you don't have with a Stephen King book, or a historical fiction book. You have a world the author creates whole that the audience needs to be able to believe. Make Edmonds field a crossroads town in between Tear and Andor, and it is completely believable to have everyone look different. But they won't be a unbroken line of Manetheren. It has to make sense, the audience has to be able to suspend disbelief. The Shannara Chronicles tried to make fundamental changes in order to "adapt" to a different format and it was absolute shit. I don't want to see that happen again.

I can get where you are coming from, but I disagree with you regarding your example of the Two Rivers. In my opinion you conflate unity of racial identity and unity of cultural identity when these are very different things. As a counter example, imagine a group of white New Yorkers, every member of the group was born and had lived their entire lives in NYC (to the point they don’t even have drivers licenses), are forced by some major calamity to relocate to the town of Helvetia, WV. Helvetia is a town of 59 people, with incredibly strong Swiss roots, traditions, and culture. Let’s assumes all 59 people are white. Based on your argument, it would be difficult to portray the cultural differences between these two groups unless the groups were also racial difference between the groups. I simply don’t agree. Racial identity and cultural identity are not coextensive.

Well, it is not exactly a dislike, it just gets tiring having to use so much time to (painfully) discern if people is destroying the things you love because they are trying to forcibly feed you their views, or they aren't and they are just plain bad at conveying ideas. I know that first hand, since I'm the first to fail big time conveying some ideas more times than I'd like to admit, but it still pains me when I see other people do it. And this gets worse with adaptations, where, as you noted, there is a need to give leeway for vision changes. Words are incredibly powerful, and sometimes, if we sat for 30 seconds straight and properly read what we've written, we could avoid misunderstandings that end up conveying a valid idea in the wrong package.

After all being said, as usual I'll wait and see. As you point out, until you see them act, is hard to dismiss them as bad fits. I've almost never discarded anything just by this alone, which has gotten me both nice surprises and regretful moments. Which one of the two will be, time will tell. But I really hate that the cast is having a hard time just because Rafe (I suppose he is the one that wrote that sentence) did such a poor job in both writing the sentence, and choosing it to showcase the though process behind the casting. At least it is reassuring that you, with the extra info behind the scenes, think that Rafe isn't pandering. It would sadden me seeing WoT destroyed because of it. Seeing the cast photos, Perrin and Mat looks pretty dope as the kids would say, but in all honesty, I'd give Egwene, Nynaeve and Rand meh/10. Still, until the premiere, all bets are off. Also thanks for your insight! It is always interesting seeing these insights on adaptations, specially from an author's perspective.

Everything I've seen from Rafe in my interactions with him (including the sessions where I gave feedback on the scripts) made me confident he had nothing but respect for the source material.

That said, this IS looking more of an adaptation than a straight filming of the source material. This will be different from the books. It reminds me more of the Lord of the Rings adaptations than, say, the early Harry Potter adaptations.

Which is again the wrong move, seeing how he bragged about the fact that he scrolled through that person's timeline just to hurl that axe back. A bit of mockery ok, I can get behind that. But bragging about that level of dubious dedication is childish at best. Death threats are obviously not good, yet that kind of trolling ain't the response either. Both parties are using the distance created by the Internet to "freely speak their minds" so to speak. Here is my prediction, based on informally observing the internet as an user for many years:

People will use it as a validation that Rafe can, and will use his position to do whatever he wants with the adaptation. This will make more critiques, some justified to an extent, and of which a small minority will act like the guy that hurled the "Death threat from my sofa" card. That in turn will trigger again the "Troll by using my authority" trap card, and will polarize people about the show. It will get review bombed, with a valid argument to a certain point. Less people will see the show, and with a bad stain in it to boot.

I hope I'm completely off the mark and utterly wrong, but I tend to hit the nail on it's head. Around these parts we have a saying: Two people don't argue if one doesn't wanna in the first place. And this time around, it does seem that both parties are willingly, in detriment of everyone else.

“As much as possible, our cast should look like America will in a few hundred years — a beautiful mix of white, brown, black and everything in between.”

Skin color is determined by ancestry only in the short term. In the very long term genetical mutations will grant people the optimal skin color to protect themselves from ultraviolet radiation. It seems the process can take as little as 100 generations (≈2,500 years) through selective sweeps. Eventually in America whites and blacks will disappear, and the general population will look like American Natives. Not quite what Judkins had in mind.

Whereas what Jordan wrote while ignoring race beautifully illustrated how these people were willing to accept people different than themselves. That could have been a powerful scene, and I think we've lost a lot of that power.

Evolution theory is something I'm not well versed so take what I say with more than a pinch of salt, but yeah, that's what should happen. However, for that to happen it needs to be a minimum amount of isolation. As long as people gets to move with ease from one country to another, and in relative short periods of time it should never get to that point. And seeing that you have flights from/to anywhere in the world daily for the foreseeable future, it shouldn't end up completely happening.

To maintain distinct appearance differences you have to maintain immigration and there has to be places of either isolation or segregation that is able to maintain those distinct traits. Very few if any real physical appearance traits follow precise dominant and recessive genetics as we are taught in school. Most are very complex involving many many genes causing a mixed expression. In the book Edmonds field is the place that maintains that segregation that keeps a distinct appearance that Jordan describes in the book.

Agreed. As I read down the list of the cast for each character, my mind immediately went: "Yup. I can see that". I think the cast looks great for the characters. Especially Nynaeve - she looks like she can pull off the "firecracker" vibe perfectly.